thomas.cooksey at bt.com wrote:
> Has anyone seen these benchmarks: http://zrusin.blogspot.com/2006/10/benchmarks.html>> It compares Cairo (what GTK+ uses) against QT. When it comes to rendering, I
> believe Qtopia & QT use the same code. So ignoring X,
>> "Qt was respectively 7, 5 and 6 times faster. Than Cairo in those plain tests."
>> Now factor in the fact that QWS has a lot less overhead than X and a smaller
> memory footprint.
>> Can someone _please_ give me a technical reason why they believe GTK+ is
> "better"? The only arguments I've seen on this list are philosophical ones. The
> only technical argument has been that you can run applications on the phone and
> have them appear on your desktop thanks to X. Surely there is a better reason?
Portability would be the main reason. I guess.
But hey. Philosophical reasons are damn good reasons if you have to work
with that stuff!
Many people just cant stand the pain using C++. ;-)
Someone had to make that choice. And it was made. I bet for good reasons.
If you don't like it? Ignore it. Make it better. Whatever.
No one made a decision for _you_.
My first thought when Nokia released Maemeo was they are stupid. But
success proves them right. When OpenMoKo started, these experience where
already made. I would do the same today.
Tilman Baumann